--On Sunday, June 08, 2014 08:50 +0200 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 6/8/2014 8:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Murray, you didn't mention whether there is any ongoing
discussion in dmarc.org and, if so, how Hector can participate
there.
That's because Hector is already active in the IETF's DMARC
discussion list, which was an addressee of your note, as it is
of this one...
And, because I'm still confused about change control and
decision processes (see below), I deliberately asked about
dmarc.org, not about the IETF's DMARC discussion list.
If there are no further discussions there and dmarc.org
is turning change control over to the IETF, it might be
helpful for people here to know that.
Discussions continue.
To my non-expert eyes, the IPR statements in the base I-D spec:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/
is standard IETF boilerplate and already shows the IETF Trust
as holding copyright...
To my non-expert eyes, informed by many years of IETF IPR
discussions and a recent rereading of the IETF Trust policies,
the copyright is important if someone wants to reproduce the
document (not at issue here, AFICT) or if the IETF decides
create a WG that intended to use the work as a starting point,
possibly forking it. As far as I know, no one has suggested the
latter. The copyright would be equally irrelevant if the IETF
decided to ignore DMARC (except as a learning experience) and
adopt some other technology.
I asked about voluntary handoff of change control; I don't see
want your response about copyright has to do with that. I hope
we are not heading into another round in which the IETF is asked
to adopt another technology and standardize it but told that it
can't make substantive changes in that technology because it has
already been discussed, adopted, and deployed elsewhere but that
possibility is precisely why the question of change control is
relevant. Copyright in a document not produced in the IETF does
not appear to be.
best,
john